The can-do general for war and peace

The Army's new chief talks to Alice Thomson about its Gulf role, his hero Wellington, and why he's happy to settle for this century

12:01AM BST 26 May 2003

General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.

Today, the new whisky-drinking, cheroot-smoking Chief of the General Staff is surrounded by men in suits and women in short skirts from the MoD press office. Gold braid drips from his mountainous shoulders as he stretches out on a leather sofa in the old War Office.

Before having his picture taken, he whips out a comb and starts smoothing down his hair. But this is no desktop general. When the press officer starts talking about "delivery", he snaps: "I don't do delivery - that's what postmen do."

Nor does the general answer to "Sir Michael" or his nicknames "Macho Jacko" or "Prince of Darkness" - it's always General Mike.

Just before the Iraq war began, he was out in the Gulf during a sandstorm, berating his men for wanting more lavatory paper. The general clearly wishes he could have followed them into action. "Every day, I wanted to be out there, but I'm too old now - my job is back in London," he says.

Related Articles

But that did not stop him flying to Basra and Baghdad as soon as the war was over. "It was extraordinary being there. Of course, I had seen all the reports and watched all the television, but it was remarkable how precise we'd been and how few casualties there were."

The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."

He was less impressed, just before the war began, when Donald Rumsfeld seemed to be suggesting that the British troops were tagging along for the ride. "I saw the comment about the British forces not being necessary. I don't think he had an idea how many British troops were committed, but the first days of the war straightened him out," says the general. "Our performance was outstanding in the south."

Gen Jackson is not renowned for his love of Americans. When commanding the Nato troops in Kosovo, he refused an order from Nato's supreme commander, Gen Wesley Clark. The American wanted him to assault Pristina airport, which had just been taken by some Russians. Gen Jackson evidently told him: "I'm not going to start World War Three for you."

He smiles at the story. "I might have said something like that," he admits.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, he says, went according to the script. "It was extraordinary when commentators started talking about Vietnam. That was a totally different strategic and geographical situation - there was no sensible parallel. Some of the media's armchair generals insisted that the plans weren't working, but they didn't have a copy of the plans."

So "Shock and Awe" will now become the template for 21st-century wars? "I don't really understand what shock and awe means. It sounds diabolical. We were just trying to ensure that casualties and physical destruction were minimised. We wanted a post-war Iraq that could be independent, successful and capable - so blowing up the infrastructure didn't seem like a great idea."

After the war came the looting: racehorses, paving stones, incubators, school desks. "I publicly warned before the war that we had to plan the peace," he says. "I'd experienced looting in Kosovo. It happens when there is a raw, abrupt shift of power."

Lt Col Tim Collins was praised as the war began for his valiant speech. Now, he faces disciplinary action. "I can't comment," says Gen Jackson. "But, as a general statement, the British Armed Forces must behave impeccably. We set our standards extremely high and we must all maintain them."

The Army could perhaps have done more to protect hospitals, orphanages, sewage works and water treatment plants. But the general makes clear that his troops are already stretched."Our degree of commitment was as far as we could have gone. Remember, we had to ringfence 13,000 troops to cover for the firemen, in case they went on strike. If I were an emotional man, I would mind the looting - but I have to use my judgment about where best to place my men and women, and we couldn't have them guarding every gate."

Gen Jackson may be a tough serviceman but he made his reputation keeping the peace. Just before the fall of the Berlin Wall, he took six months out to write a thesis about the future use of forces in operations that would require more sensitive soldiering.

His first job was in Anguilla. "In 1967, there was a little local difficulty: Anguilla decided it wanted to become independent. I spent four months in the Caribbean stabilising the country, getting to know the people." A successful operation? "Well, it will cost you a small fortune to take a holiday there these days."

Then, there was Northern Ireland, where he went as a young captain in the Parachute Regiment. Being there, he says, "taught us how to take the steam out of a situation, and chat to the children on the street".

In Kosovo, he became the hero of the oppressed, spending some of his time in the refugee camps. He says he loved "every minute" of his time as commander of the Nato peacekeeping force. "Trying to rebuild a country is what I enjoy. In the end, all conflicts are about people; their views and beliefs are part of the battleground. In the Balkans, Kosovo and Kabul, we became very good at making friends with the locals. We weren't there to scare them."

Does he see the Army's future role as part-soldier, part-aid worker? "We are paid by the nation to risk all on behalf of the nation. We fight and win wars - we are not a gendarmerie, nor a long-term peacekeeping force, although I admit it is something we are exceptionally good at. We haven't got the resources."

He is sceptical about whether the Army could cope with another war this year. "I've no doubt we could reconstitute something in an emergency, but it would be pretty haphazard."

Is the Army prepared for the ongoing war against terrorism? "We can help to manage the aftermath of a major terrorist attack. Sadly, the Armed Forces know all too well what it's like to face terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland." Recently, he gave evidence to the Saville inquiry into the Bloody Sunday shootings, which has so far cost more than £200 million. "Was it a good use of money? I couldn't possibly answer," he says. "But I think the British behaviour in Northern Ireland has been one of remarkable restraint."

His men have also been cross-examined for the Stevens inquiry, in which members of the Army's main anti-terrorist unit are being investigated for their involvement with paramilitaries. Does Gen Jackson think there should be an amnesty for all soldiers, as well as terrorists?

"No, it is for the British Army to set and maintain the highest standards. Either we are subject to the rule of law or we are not. We cannot be equated with terrorists."

Could events such as those being examined in the Saville and Stevens inquiries happen again? "Nothing is impossible. Mistakes were made because human beings are fallible, but institutions must learn from their mistakes."

He adds: "It is a great honour to be heading the Army. It's a can-do Army, with an enormous amount of spirit. The nation and politicians demand much of their soldiers, even that they lay down their lives - and the soldiers have a right, in return, to have a good quality of life."

He is not demanding millions of pounds for new equipment - only wimps, he clearly feels, complain about their tools. "There was a lot of rubbish spouted about equipment being shoddy in Iraq. But our vehicles didn't break down. The Challenger 11 was a battle winner; the Warrior was impervious to anything thrown at it."

So the Army doesn't need more money? "Would I like to be paid twice what I am? Yes - but, far more importantly, the soldiers should be paid properly for the wonderful job they are doing. I would make a strong case for better pay, but I know I am up against hospitals and hip replacements."

His great hero is Wellington. "I love reading about his small, perfectly formed army: it never lost its sense of can-do. It must have been a hell of an adventure being an officer under Wellington.

"The Battle of Waterloo would have been my favourite. But I'll settle for this century quite happily - it's already bringing all kinds of new challenges."